The Presence of Narrative in Non-Linear Experiences

Being exposed from an early age to highly thematic and narrative-based literature and film, my mind is predisposed to understanding the world through linear mediums that seek to communicate ideas intentionally. Since college I’ve been fascinated by non-linear representations of the world, mostly because their apparent lack of cohesive ideas present a challenge to demystify their meaning. This pursuit has mostly just facilitated a better understanding, and thereby respect, of visual art. However, this respect does not envelope all art; forms of highly self-expressive nature are of little value to me. Surely there is meaning behind the works of Dadaists or Abstract Expressionists.

Over the past year or so, a critical outlook towards the medium of games has also emerged, much for the same reasons. Again, the main question is whether games that lack themes or centralized ideas are worth playing. A popular genre that routinely lacks these tend to place the player in a non-linear sandbox. In such an environment the player is often given little story or overarching themes to the world. I find that in these settings, instead of taking actions that gravitate around a meaning or story, I am forced to focus on mechanics and technique. Often this has turned an enjoyable experience into a practice in micro-management. All allure is removed as the game’s relationship to the player is no longer a dialog, but is forced to be game-centric through requiring the player to obsess over technique in order to progress.

Appreciating forms of this nature in games while coming from a narrative-heavy background has been a great challenge. However, I think I was able to find an answer through friends, my own occupation, and a couple of recent sandbox games. While in San Antonio for a time, I was able to get to know a good friend who is a general contractor; a job that requires a lot of physical manipulation and knowledge of how physical systems work. I was also employed as a software engineer, which typically requires one to design and think about software as analogous to objects and tools. The realization is that objects in this genre of game, and in real life, have a level of intrinsic meaning. The specific games that helped the realization of this were Katamari Damacy and Just Cause 2. Previously I mentioned that the typical result of playing these games is to obsess over technique. While recently playing Just Cause 2, the realization came that I could determine a relation between the designer’s crafting of physical objects to the other elements in the game (such as story, music, etc). Since most of the game involves manipulating objects in order to achieve objectives, each object is given certain physical properties, and all objects operate along a common set of physical laws. The variation in the properties present of the objects convey a different meaning when used, much in the way that a sledgehammer can be used in a different manner than a knife. Now, I’m not trying to say that Just Cause 2 uses realistic physics. But rather, that the designer’s embed their choice of meaning through making objects that operate in certain ways, even if those ways seem minute. An excellent example can be seen through the sound queues that arise when picking up objects in Katamari Damacy, which taken with the rest of the game, convey an idea of the futility of material wealth.

Lastly, so as to not convey that I intend on spending countless hours seeking meaning within sandbox games, I don’t believe that I can personally invest large amounts of time in these games and still derive just as much meaning if I were to read a book or have a good conversation. As stated in the beginning, I’m predisposed to other ways of understanding the world. As such, this method is intended merely to assist in interpreting what otherwise tends to appear as chaos. At most, I intend on using it to understand better the designer’s vision and how people find meaning in non-linear contexts, which seems a popular outlook.

The Environment and Natural Contentions

Given the assumption that life has within it, some degree of struggle or fight, there is a relation between environment and type of struggle which man encounters. For three simple environments, of desert, jungle, and agrarian plain, there exists respectively the struggle of man against the forces of nature, man itself, and the mind.

The first, being the desert, is perhaps the most interesting because the environment is itself the opponent that man finds itself against. In a desert, resources are so scarce and other creatures, human or otherwise, so few, that in order to survive, man must chiefly concern himself with the elements; how they behave, what they demand, etc. This pits man against a foe who is highly abstract, and has little to no empathetic qualities that humanity can call commonality with, and thereby is highly alienated from this experience. What comes forth to survive is a perspective "incapable of reflection", but instead of "suspense and watchfulness", because clues to surviving are so unapparent and inaccessible (The Plains of Patagonia, Hudson).

The jungle provides such comparatively abundant resources that survival is often against man itself. Equivocal environments to an actual tropical jungle, is that of the city; similar principles can be derived. Although resources are numerous in the jungle, so is life. Because of this, there is life such that it lives by fighting other life. Man therefore, must orientate himself around human, animal, insect, and plant kind, in order to survive, both feeding off of as well as defending against these groups. As such, man’s skills become strong in external expressions: social behaviors, physical strength, political renown, etc.

In the agrarian plain, man struggles against the mind. The environment allows human life to exist more easily than the desert, but less than in the jungle. Less population density detracts the importance of human interaction. Greater allowances to grow give less pressure on having a perspective of "suspense and watchfulness", and thereby more of an ease of what the plain will bring to fruition. Having no opponents other than what the land gives him with relatively little struggle, and having little reason to compete, man’s reality is relatively fixed. Thereby, the struggles which do emerge are those of the mind and inward life.

A Sense of Placelessness: Modernistic and Postmodernistic Alienation

Recently, I have been reading through a book on globalization, and an aspect of the author's analysis of cultural globalization stood out to me largely because it seemed very similar to modernistic alienation, a concept I often think about. Yet, it seems that since this is in the setting of a more globalized world, that the alienation is akin to postmodernism. Additionally, one can look at this aspect and draw out the common principles shared by both modernistic alienation and this supposed, postmodernistic alienation.

The contemporary experience of living and acting across cultural borders means both the loss of traditional meanings and the creation of new symbolic expressions. Reconstructed feelings of belonging coexist in uneasy tension with a sense of placelessness. [...] it appears that the old structures of modernity are slowly giving way to a new 'postmodern' framework characterized by a less stable sense of identity and knowledge.

Manfred Steger

According to what I've learned so far, modernistic alienation had its roots in the industrial revolution, which resulted in alienation largely in workers becoming more alienated towards what they produced and what they used to produce it due to the dehumanization by the mechanization process involved. Additionally, the traditional family structure was changed by an increased disconnect between a family's father due to a greater displacement by industrial jobs that kept him farther and longer from the home.

The proposed postmodern alienation seems tied to today's information society, where people are more alienated towards information in general. Examples of problems birthed from this can be seen in the struggles of knowing what is true without acquiescing to relativism, a greater simplification in appearances of daily life due as a response to a sense of information overload, the prominence of diversity dialog in television shows such as The Office. So, it seems that modernistic and postmodernistic alienation differs greatest in the aspect of information and material. Of course, this is not to say that postmodernism is against materialism, for that can be one of the ways to experience information as well as to conveniently simplify its presentation.

Considering the details of each kind of alienation, it seems that each have commonality in the sense of placelessness, that the author mentions. In modernistic alienation, this likely was produced out of having no way to distinguish one place to another due to the increase in material homogeneity of products. Placelessness for modernity could also be seen in how the individualistic / emotional tendencies, that in the workplace established a sense of place, were repressed in men due to the use of Scientific Management. For the postmodern, placelessness is produced by the challenge of distinguishing one informational / cultural sphere from another as being that which one chooses to identify with. Since identity in the Western mindset is tied to ideas, when one is faced with a multitude of seemingly endless right choices, one is unable to provide distinction by choosing one because they all seem largely valid. Hence, postmodern man can cognitively choose to agree with the cultures he experiences in travels (on foot or through the Internet), but cannot, on an emotional level, identify with any of them.

Cultural Foundations of Truth: Comparing Western Europe to Central Europe

I recently began to think more about some of the friendships I've had in the past and the characteristics of the various people I knew. Something that's been on the back of my mind for a while has been the idea that White people, or those of European descent, are more predisposed to enjoy and gain friendship with those that share the region in Europe their family came from. Previously, I had considered most White Americans to be fairly similar, but over time this question has crept into my mind as a possibility in explaining some of the strange differences and causes of tension that I couldn't put my finger on.

Recently, I had some thoughts as a result of reading some partly unrelated literature that seemed to confirm greatly that this does in fact exist more than I previously gave credit. In reflecting, I was able to see at least one regional distinction with people of European descent. This was the division between those that have heritage in areas of Western Europe that at least include England and Ireland, and those that have heritage in areas of Central Europe that at least include Germany, Italy, and probably France. This distinction was addressed in my mind primarily by each group's tendency towards how they acquire truth.

The following are the distinctions I noticed, each bullet generally is paired in idea with another on the other list according to order:

Central European (German, Italian, perhaps French)

• Will to Power
  
• Determination yields results
  
• Right person in the right place can make all the difference
  
• Materialistic reality is full of tools for taking action

Western European (England, Ireland)

• Phenomenal Enlightenment
  
• Sudden awareness gives ability for power
  
• Correct combination of various, random facts brings creative power
  
• Materialistic reality is fuel / entropy for this "enlightenment fire"

Each of these pairings should be explained and given example in order to understand more fully.

The Will to Power idea can be understood such that truth is known by the person who has taken the action to resolve the issue in question. It isn't the idea that comes first to solve the problem, but the action in progress or completed successfully that reveals the answer and hence the truth. Phenomenal Enlightenment differs from Will to Power in that the truth is known based on what emerges from a collective pool of many concepts. Once a pattern rises almost by no direct provocation, the answer is known and hence the truth.

The next category can be understood as a comparison of how each sees power. Central Europeans tend to think that power comes from having a determined spirit; a person who seeks by direct action or experimentation of possible solutions, is seen as likely powerful. Western Europeans tend to think that once one has become enlightened almost by phenomenon with the answer to the problem, that they have then great power to take action successfully.

The next category covers the environment in which each group tends to see truth come from. The Central European is highly existential in that they tend to believe that the right person in the right situation can produce great results. As such, if the person is not "right" or of a determining demeanor, or if the situation does not contain the necessary material tool base, truth will tend to not be found. The Western European sees a truth-bearing environment as one that is surrounded with many ideas; many not related to the problem at hand perhaps at all. Out of this seemingly chaotic environment tends to emerge the truth that the person is seeking. And so, one must typically expose oneself to numerous sources, potentially unrelated, before one will be able to see the solution to the problem at hand.

The last category covers each regions view towards materialistic reality and culture. The Central European sees material reality as a place of potential tools to solve problems and discover truth, as they tend to use the objects around them to resolve what works and what doesn't. They tend to see the material culture that builds up in society as only the outpourings of what comes from man's actions in using the tools he has. Power is in the person and determination. Modern Science was born from Central Europe and as such, it has many traits attributed to the culture that created it. The Western European sees material reality as a great source for gaining enlightenment; the entropy that feeds an "enlightenment fire." They tend to see the material culture that builds up in society as not just tools. They see a tool-based mentality towards material reality as sterile and a wrong way of using one's material surroundings. Materialistic reality tends to be powerful in itself in that it is "culture."

Origins of Genuine Emotion

Last night, my brain was very busy pondering the nature of emotion and what differentiates artificial emotion from real emotion. This thinking has come up before out of my impression from seeing fellow men who fake their emotions and are fine with it. Looking at such an act, I used to be comfortable with it, as it used to be the way that I saw that emotions could be expressed; by forcing what wasn't there and so to somehow create an emotional base out of nothing. But it seems according to my recent thoughts and impressions from seeing so many other people do it, that it doesn't work and that over the long term, it is still not genuine.

To try and communicate the impression I've been receiving, I'll give some examples. Usually when I'm in a crowd of people that are younger than me and who are engaged in something most of them attribute to high emotion, this impression is received. The only situation I've seen much of this occur in has been in faith settings, where fellow believers are trying with all their emotional heart to reach to God. In some congregations, the people seem genuine in their emotions, in many others; particularly Gen-Y groups, the people seem to be trying to force something that doesn't exist. In those settings, the impression is strongest.

Anyways, not to dwell on impressions that much; there's plenty of rational arguments as to nature of the problem I've described other than my personal experiential impression (but that is important). One idea that I'm becoming more convinced in, is the idea that emotions attributed to certain actions / places / people are created after having long-term experience with those actions / places / people. If this is true, then genuine emotions cannot come from experiences that are temporal. This of course seems incorrect because dramatic experiences clearly emotionally imprint everyone, but to me that seems because dramatic experiences are typically dwelt upon. Another supporting reason to this concept of emotion is that for the most part, emotions have their biological origins in being little more than strong neural pathways in the brain. Positive and negative emotions come from either going with or going against these hardened paths to some degrees. Other expressions that have mixed emotions could be a combination of going both with and against (or having some other kind of way of associating good and bad value to the emotions; I'm not sure, I'm not a cognitive scientist).

And so, the less experience one has with certain actions / places / people, but with a variety of actions / places / people, the less that person is likely to have genuine emotions. The more that one focuses one's time, thoughts, and energy into these actions / places / people, the more one will gain emotional attribution to them, and hence emotion will come forth while putting further time, thoughts, and energy into these actions / places / people (now, I've only defined emotions that are experiential; its quite possible there are other forms, but they are the ones I've been able to identify most easily).

So, in order to facilitate the creation of emotions, one must not look to take action in "being emotional;" that is, to say to oneself: "It is time to act in the emotion of happiness, so as to practice it, so that it will be genuine some day." To believe that emotions can be done, just like tasks can accomplished, is a misunderstanding of the very nature of emotions. To be emotional, one must put time, experience, and energy into what one desires to grow emotional in; and then emotions will grow from that. Again, emotions cannot be the focus of one's actions, otherwise they will not truly grow (if anything, the artificial concept of what one thinks emotions are will grow, but not truly the emotions themselves).

So, in order to promote the creation of emotion, one must give experience, time, and energy to certain pursuits over other. Neither a jack of all trades, nor a task-centric perspective will bring about the change desired.

This Place...Like Any Place

As I've been down in San Antonio, I have been thinking over the experience of transitioning from the Midwest to the Southwest. Cultural homogeneity has been on my mind for a good portion of the time as I've noticed that there hasn't been much of any culture shock. I expected there to be at least some, and the absence of it has me wondering whether that has been a good thing.

Cynically, I can argue that the similarity in culture is due to the eroding of culture being defined geographically with the advent of a nationalized American culture due partly to the influence of this age's technology. There is likely some truth in this, but lately I've been wary of analyzing too strongly on the basis of technology; something some would argue I could be very biased in, since I have more experience with technology than most.

On the other hand, I can see a lack of sensitivity due to what has been lately, emotional inertness. I wouldn't admit this to anyone I don't know, since being in touch with emotions is all the rage right now. Still, the concept of being detached emotionally from one's surroundings seems highly plausible to me right now. With that, I believe it has been creating inner stress as I know most of my day I cannot use emotions too freely lest I start to lose productivity at work. And I do love my work, but I also love culture and being sensitive one's environs, so this creates some inner arguments.

Regardless, the concept of one place being like any place intrigues me because of its broader linkages. Most of these deal with the strong philosophical undercurrents in our culture of existentialism: individualism, love of free will, isolation. If you want creative exposure to the topic:

- Book: The Sheltering Sky
- Visual: Cowboy Bebop

Music and Mark Morgan

It's kind of bad to become attached to an eclectic artist's style, because one can tend to have a hard time finding other music that fits quite the same way. For me if anything, music is largely meaningless unless it is tied to greater experiences that then cast that music as having more layers than simply the music itself. An artist that I've enjoyed for a while now has been Mark Morgan, and he's been pretty elusive outside of a few productions that I listen to semi-regularly.

Historically, Morgan has worked mostly on computer game soundtracks, but I could really care less. His works that I've been exposed to have been significant because of their nature in the aspect of setting; the way they create an environment out of sound. Now, I know I just told you that I enjoy music not for music itself, but for how they tie to greater experiences. Perhaps indirectly one could argue that this tie-in is through the computer game aspect in which I originally heard them. That could be, but I see his music as creating a multitude of layers because it does more than direct mood or attitude, it places you somewhere, and somehow place ends up being more significant for me than other aspects. I suppose in the end, it is the aspect of place; the permanence of it rather than that of a temporal emotion, that makes the music significant.

But, back to the point. So, I was looking into trying to find more about Morgan online, and apparently he had an interview with a Russian gaming website. While there, he spoke about his background and such, but perhaps more importantly is that he now has an official website in the works and might even be publishing a CD some time soon:

The Interview
http://www.markmorganmusic.com

Hopefully, this will yield creative fruit and less hermitism...